Propaganda 101

G

GoSlash27

New member
Let's look at this latest example from the good 'fair and balanced' folks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html

Whooee! Lookit that headline! "Iraq How-to Manual Directed Arab Military Operatives In Afghanistan"
Then they go into how this whole thing "could prove Bush right" about the connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Yessir, top-flight reporting from FOX news!

Except....uhh....can anybody tell me how the assertion in the headline is supported anywhere within the text?
How did they leap from "An Arab regime, possibly Iraq" to "Iraq"?
 
Maybe Saddam Hussein's government just collected "How to be Secret Agents" books for grins and giggles. :D
 
We have terrorist training manuals in our computers too. Heck, they've found terrorists in posession of U.S. Army field manuals! Maybe MSNBC should run a headline saying that Bush had ties to AlQaeda....
 
An Arab regime, possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

so much for the headline.......
 
Heck, now that I think of it, I read that news report and now I have a terrorist training manual on my computer. I got it from FOX news, and they have it on their computer....
 
"How did they leap from "An Arab regime, possibly Iraq" to "Iraq"?"

They explained their conclusions. Guess you didn't read it all the way to the end.

John
 
The connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.? Iraq Al-Qaeda. is operatong in Iraq, Zarkawi was the head of Al-Qaeda.In Iraq.
 
Fight all of the terrorists now, or fight them later.The good fighter will be terrible in his onset, and prompt in his decision.

They threw the first punches.

Don't let hatred of GWB/FoxNews cloud your vision. These people will kill every one of us the minute they get the chance.
 
johnbt,
I read it thoroughly, else I wouldn't have posted this.
If you'd be so kind as to explain the reasoning in the article, I will point out why the conclusion in the headline is not supported.
 
If you'd be so kind as to explain the reasoning in the article, I will point out why the conclusion in the headline is not supported.
Click to expand...
As johnbt said, "They explained their conclusions" in the article. Go ahead and lay out your thoughts based on the article.
 
1. Who cares!!!
2. Old info no longer of concern
3. WWIII was started by them and they will not give up till you and your family are dead or Islamic.
4. Ben Laden said the head of terrists in Iraq was his guy. Your problem with that is.....? You don't want it to be true so its not?
What part of this war don't you understand?
 
I think alot of folks just have their head in the sand! There will always be some sniveling excuse as to why we shouldn't be in Iraq. :rolleyes:
 
"Sniveling"?

Yeah, that displays a healthy attitude towards considering all sides of an argument.

What's the point in particpating in a debate when you have your mind made up so firmly that you dismiss any dissenting opinion as "sniveling"? Is it that comforting to hear only the echo of your own voice?
 
I would just like to say that if Army FMs are anything like Navy TRAMANs, they're unclassified and anyone can get ahold of them.
 
Yeah, that displays a healthy attitude towards considering all sides of an argument.
Click to expand...

I HAVE considered both sides of the argument, I only agree with the right side though.:D The other side has come up with nothing but weak excuses!
 
"If you'd be so kind as to explain the reasoning in the article, I will point out why the conclusion in the headline is not supported."

Me explain it? I would hope that wouldn't be necessary since they laid it out for us in the article.

Instead of simply posting your conclusion - "Whooee! Lookit that headline!" - you could have posted why and how you disagreed with the explanation of how the conclusions were reached.

Again, it's all right there in the article, so I'm not going to explain it to you line by line.

John
 
That's the most likely conclusion drawn from an apparent training manual unearthed in captured Iraqi government computer files translated and analyzed exclusively for Fox News, and made public for the first time.
The document, apparently written before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, could bolster the Bush administration's contention that Saddam Hussein was providing support for Islamic extremists who were plotting against America.
Fox News and Robison last week revealed the contents of a 1999 notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) operative. That notebook detailed how Saddam's agents aggressively pursued and entered into a diplomatic, intelligence, and security arrangement with the Taliban and Islamist extremists operating in Afghanistan — years before the 9/11 attacks.


Let's see...the documents were discovered and translated from a computer known to be in the possession of an Iraqi agent working for Saddam in 1999.

What conclusion would you come up with, other than what Fox and it's analysts came up with?
 
The training manual warns, in stark how-to terms, of the dangers of "information leaks," and instructs Arab operatives inside Afghanistan
Click to expand...
and
apparent training manual unearthed in captured Iraqi government computer files
Click to expand...
Let's see:
Document found on gov't computers in Iraq
Document instructs Arabs in Afghanistan on ops

Based on all the other docs being translated it's looking more and more like Iraq and Al Qaeda had connections. Seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me. The analysis at the end of the article defines why it is believed to be Iraq that is country of origin of the manual.

You may disagree with the analysis if you like, but that doesn't make it 'propaganda'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top